Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pretend wallet reach


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. in the absence of sources shall we just start again? Spartaz Humbug! 18:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretend wallet reach

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to be a non-notable neologism; fails WP:N, although if anyone can provide appropriate referencing I'd be happy to leave it be. Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Ironholds (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC) 
 * Merge to etiquette article. Or merge to/create a dining etiquette article. I don't think this topic passes muster on its own, but the content is interesting and potentially encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is dating etiquette. This article is just biased rubbish, though.  There's actually a whole history of the etiquette of dating with respect to money and exchange of favours, from its working-class origins in treating and charity girls of the beginning of the 20th century, through the incorporation into middle-class dating in the 1920s, replacing the earlier courtship practice of calling, to the mores of the present day and side topics such as taxi dancers.  I recommend ISBN 9780691124087 and ISBN 9780807830260 as good sources on these subjects. There are a lot of views on who should pay on a date (see ISBN 9780793126613 page 5, the whole of chapter 4 of ISBN 9781412929189, and chapter 14 of ISBN 9781592571536, for examples), and not only is this article unsourced, it is grossly biased towards just one of those views, with an inherently non-neutral title.  (Not all views concur that a woman offering to pay is pretending, for example.)  From what I've seen, this article appears to be based not upon serious scholarship, but upon jokes made by comedians.  Only one source comes even close to what this article says, and that is a self published book of humour about dating Jewish men. So basically everything about this article, its content and title, would have to be junked for a proper, neutral, verifiable, informative, non-joke, and thorough article to be written.  I for one wouldn't shed a tear if we decided to toss this total dreck out whilst we waited for a proper, sourced, and neutral stub at a decent title to be created. Uncle G (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So that translates as "rewrite or gtfo"? Ironholds (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Sandstein   18:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, neologism with no reliable sources to indicate it's more than a term used by one or two columnists.  Little Red Riding Hood  talk  20:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced, original research, possibly inspired by a bad dating experience. Don't go out with that person again.  If kept, make sure to add the following warning: "The 'pretend wallet reach' should never be attempted in a situation where guns have been drawn." Mandsford (talk) 14:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to some subarticle of etiquette or dating and add maybe just one clause about reaching for a wallet or check. In future maybe some of the sources used in this AFD could be used to do a paragraph on it.  PS. Wasn't there a Seinfeld routine about this? Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.